Five Reasons to Oppose Gay Marriage

1) Gay marriage is incompatible with Christianity (and for that matter, Islam & Judaism). If someone asks you why you oppose gay marriage, the only thing you really have to say to explain it is, “I’m a Christian.”

God doesn’t condemn anyone for who he is; so if you’re attracted to the same sex, that absolutely, unconditionally doesn’t make you bad, evil or “un-Christian.” On the other hand, let me note that I do consider hating, tormenting, or bullying people because of their sexual orientation to be distinctively “un-Christian” behavior. As Billy Graham has said, “God will not judge a Christian guilty for his or her involuntary feelings.”: However, God has drawn a clear line in the sand when it comes to homosexual acts. If you’re gay, you’re not allowed to act on it. If that seems harsh or unfair to you, well, sorry, but you’ll have to take it up with God. It’s His rule.

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.” — Leviticus 18:22

The people of Sodom and Gomorrah could tell you how serious God is about that — if there were any of them left. So as a Christian, you can no more condone gay marriage than you could give the thumbs up to prostitution or wife swapping. That means if you’re a Christian standing in favor of gay marriage, then you’re a Christian who’s standing directly in opposition to the God whom you claim to worship.

2) Gay marriage will end up infringing on religious freedom. The moment gay marriage becomes the law of the land, all sorts of First Amendment freedoms involving the free exercise of people’s religion will likely be infringed upon as a consequence. No pastor should be forced to marry a gay couple. No wedding photographer, cake maker, caterer, or wedding planner should be forced to be involved in these weddings. No church or any other location should be forced to be the site of a gay wedding. Children will be taught in schools that gay marriage is normal, legal, and moral — and it directly contradicts the teachings of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. To create this special privilege for gay Americans would mean impinging on the First Amendment rights of more than 200 million Americans.

3) Civil unions could confer every “right” that marriage does. Gay marriage is not about “rights;” it’s about special privileges. After all, every right conferred upon a couple via marriage could be just as easily conferred on a gay couple via a civil union, which is a compromise that could probably be had if gay activists wanted it. In fact, the biggest objection conservatives have had to civil unions is that there’s a fear they’d be used as a stepping stone to gay marriage. So, let’s be clear: there are actually no “rights” whatsoever at stake in the push for gay marriage.

Instead, what gay activists are looking for is a special privilege of the worst sort because it’s as much about dragging everyone else down as it is about raising everyone up. To accommodate gay marriage, the whole meaning of marriage has to be warped and twisted. The religious content has to be taken out and marriage has to become just one more reason to file paperwork with the government.

So, this isn’t really so much about marriage per se as it is an attempt to force society and religion to accept gay unions as every bit as normal and healthy as straight relationships, which will never truly happen. You might be able to intimidate some people into silence with political correctness, but the truth is still there and people know it, even if they don’t want to be screamed at and accused of being bigots for pointing out the obvious.

4) Gay marriage may be where it starts, but it wouldn’t be where it ends. Once the definition of marriage is arbitrarily transformed to make gay activists happy, there’s no chance it’s going to stop there. For example, you could make a much better case for polygamy than you can for gay marriage. It has a much more robust historical tradition, it’s more consistent with religious values, it produces children — there simply is no compelling, logical reason why gay marriage should become the law of the land without also granting polygamy the same legal status.

People get outraged by this sort of comparisons, but this isn’t just speculation; these are unions that have occurred in other countries. So, if it has happened somewhere else, you can be sure some wacko will want to do it here, some lawyer will decide marrying your sister is a civil right, and some liberal judge will agree with him. Next thing you know, anyone who opposes it is accused of being George Wallace and trying to stop the progress of civil rights. Sound farfetched? Well, isn’t that exactly what happened with gay marriage?

5) Marriage already has enough problems as it is without gay marriage. One of the weirdest arguments in favor of gay marriage goes like so: Marriage is already on the rocks. Look at all the people cheating, look at all the divorces; so why not gay marriage, too?

This is like arguing that someone has already accidentally eaten some rat poison; so why not give him some cyanide to go along with it? When someone’s sick, you don’t make him sicker, you heal him. If marriage has been tarnished in our society — and it has — we should be looking for ways to strengthen marriage, not weaken it.

“1. Incompatible with Abrahamic faiths.” So. This is a secular nation, no laws should be determined by religion. Also, you need to pick a verse not in Leviticus as that is only applicable to Gods chosen, the Israelites. Any Christian knows this so to use that verse is deceitful. As for Sodom and Gomorrah, one of the reasons listed for its destruction was “fullness of bread”, an obvious point against gluttony. Judging from your picture, you are certainly full of bread and thus, condemnable yourself. So careful where you point that chubby judging finger, John.

“2. Gay marriage will end up infringing on religious freedom.” Hardly. Many states have already passed legislation ensuring the protections of religious freedom in regard to this claim. And the current judgement in favor of Hobby Lobby would clearly indicate the courts would side with any church if such an issue became a legal matter.

“Three. Civil unions could offer every right as marriage.” You are being entirely deceitful on this one. Civil unions do not hold the same legal rights as marriage. To list a few differences, they are not interchangeable between states nor are they equally recognized internationally and Federal protections such as tax and social security benefits are unavailable to the civilly united. This is similar to the old Jim Crow laws, where everyone claimed separate but equal but we all know the truth.

“Four. Gay marriage may be where it starts, but it wouldn’t be where it ends” What a preposterous serious of events you lined up in your slippery slope. The slippery slope argument is known as a common logical fallacy and your scenarios illustrate why. This false argument has been refuted so often as to be a source for embarrassment to the one regurgitating it.

“Five. Marriage already has enough problems as it is without gay marriage” Ok, I had thought the previous point four would have been your greatest source of intellectual embarrassment, then came point five. Its obvious you are trying to set up a straw man you can knock down, suggesting people argue that because marriage is broken, we may as well allow same sex marriage. That has never been an argument. The progression of the argument has been as follows, fundamentalist claim same sex marriage will erode the institution of marriage, same sex proponents rightly point out opposite sex marriage has already accomplished this on their own, so don’t scapegoat same sex couples or accuse them of doing what heterosexual couples have already done. The argument has never been, as you put it, heterosexuals have already jacked it so you may as well allow homosexuals in.

I can’t understand how what 2 consenting adults do in the bedroom is anybody’s business but the people in the bedroom. And if your revolted by what goes on in their you have 2 choices. Stop peeking in the window or you could get up and leave. You need the crutch of religion fine but that doesn’t give you the right to cram your so called version down everybody’s throats. There are 15 recognized religions and any number of religions not recognized. Those that are defunct due to nobody practicing anymore, etc. Religion is about faith. Having faith is because you have faith not because it gives you a purpose, safety, etc. It’s like cake it’s just as good without the frosting. Religion like sexual preference is a choice and it is your choice but you can’t make a choice for anyone else. It is same sex rights but it’s also about getting people like this author to understand what they do is not up for debate and none of his business.

Shawn Beach, i’m not retracting anything. Like I said about resons to marry. There may be a thousands to get married, but marriage was created for a SINGLE purpose. I swear, I’m beginning to think all liberals are idiots. Once again, read what I said!

Bigots like the author said the same thing about interracial marriage. “No pastor should be forced to marry a mixed-race couple.” And you know what? None ever were, just as no pastor will ever be required to perform same-sex marriages.

On the other hand, wedding photographers can’t refuse to work for a mixed-race couple just because they claim their religion is against it. So that part of your concern is valid. And we seem to have survived this state-enforced tolerance.

” If someone asks you why you oppose gay marriage, the only thing you really have to say to explain it is, “I’m a Christian.””

So you think every American should be required by law to uphold your religion’s beliefs?

If you were Catholic, would you be trying to ban divorce? Would it seem reasonable to you if America’s Jews campaigned to ban pork? Is it OK if Muslim Americans democratically get Sharia law enacted in our courts? No, of course not. But you think it’s dandy to ban same-sex marriage because your religion doesn’t approve it.

Don’t ever, EVER pretend you’re a defender of religious liberty. You only defend your own religion, and you have no respect for anyone else’s. Frankly, you don’t deserve freedom. You’re too selfish.

“Marriage already has enough problems as it is without gay marriage. One of the weirdest arguments in favor of gay marriage goes like so: Marriage is already on the rocks. Look at all the people cheating, look at all the divorces; so why not gay marriage, too?”

Your arguments is childishly bigoted. You might as well argue, “Our nation’s highways and bridges are in bad shape and need repair. So while we’re looking for a way to pay for that and get all the work done, gay people can’t drive. After all, letting more people use the roads will make them deteriorate quicker.”

The only difference is that in the second example, you’d be throwing gays out of the boat; in the first example, you’re refusing to let them get IN the boat to begin with.

“Civil unions could confer every “right” that marriage does. Gay marriage is not about “rights;” it’s about special privileges. After all, every right conferred upon a couple via marriage could be just as easily conferred on a gay couple via a civil union, which is a compromise that could probably be had if gay activists wanted it. ”

There was a time when you might have convinced GLBT Americans to accept civil unions instead of marriage equality. Any time between 1969 and 1990, in fact. But your side never pursued that, because you thought you could refuse ALL gay rights and return society to the 1950s. You spent billions of dollars and millions of hours passing laws against same-sex marriage instead of negotiating a compromise. Instead of hedging your bets, you put it all on the hard line of “stamp out homosexuality”.

And you lost the bet. You lost it ALL. Not only is same-sex marriage going to be the law of the land, but so will every other part of the gay rights “agenda” you’ve always feared. Hate crimes laws, anti-discrimination laws, openly gay politicians and public employees, gays smooching in public, adopting children, and living next door to you.

We’re not going to make a deal with you now, any more than you would be talking about civil unions if SCOTUS had upheld all those state marriage bans. The only think I’m going to offer you now is this: I will NOT attack your civil rights the way you attacked mine. You won’t see my trying to outlaw your marriage, take away your children, or get you fired from your job.

Within a decade every state will recognize same-sex marriage. And you know what? It’s not going to affect you. You will eventually wonder why you were ever so dead-set against same-sex marriage. You’ll cringe if someone shows you the idiotic arguments you made against it. Your grandchildren will ask why you were on the wrong side of this issue, just as you might ask your ancestors why they opposed desegregation or women’s suffrage

“Gay marriage may be where it starts, but it wouldn’t be where it ends. ”

Slippery slopes run both ways. If we ban gay marriage, next we’ll try to ban interracial marriage, then inter-faith marriage, until eventually the Government Eugenics Board simply tells each of us whom we have to marry. See how easy, and ridiculous, this kind of “argument” is?

For each of your scenarios, gay marriage has shown us exactly how to ponder the issue. What compelling secular reason does the government have to prohibit a kind of marriage? Gay marriage has succeeded because none of its opponents have been able to explain such a reason; your only reasons are religious, so they don’t pass Constitutional muster. So instead of pounding your tiny fists in the mud and crying, LEARN from this.

Is there a reason to ban polygamous marriages? You could argue they’re inherently unfair to women, or that they make inheritance rights too hard to figure out. Both are sound reasons for the government not to recognize multiple spouses. And anyway, if your religion makes you oppose same-sex marriage, why do you dislike polygamy, which the Bible endorses as perfectly valid? Do you adhere to the Bible or not?

Is there a reason to ban brother-sister marriages? Yes; if they have children, they’d put the babies at an unacceptable risk of birth defects, which is a crime against the baby. But what if one or both is sterile, so children aren’t possible? Do you have a valid reason to ban their wedding other than, “I think it’s icky”? What if it’s a sister-sister marriage?

You can’t marry the dead, because the dead can’t consent. Neither can animals, who in any case don’t have human rights. (Dogs can’t even marry other dogs, so why could they marry humans.) Children also can’t consent. And bluntly, if you look at the states that let people under 16 marry, you’re going to find almost all of them are in the Bible Belt. Christianity has a long history of tolerating child brides and arranged marriages for money.

I feel truly saddened that I wasted my time reading this stupid fucking page . see these dumbasses underneath gum flapping like chaps. Im not even gay and this shit offends me . what a sorry way to spend your lives complaining about this. Grow the fuck up and mind your own damn business morons.

1 and 2 are not a reason for denying same sex marriages. It’s against your bible not god. Saying I’m a christian is basically saying you’re a bigot. Religion has nothing to do with the law.You know for a religion that supposedly has a god who love all you catholics use him to hate/hurt enough people. I was raised Catholic until I saw the hypocrisy of the catholic bible. 3 civil unions maybe as legal as church weddings but that could also be said for opposite sex marriages. Civil unions is enough for man/woman marriage so they shouldn’t have to wed in church at all. 4 is a complete joke. Just cause women can wear pants men have lost all rights is basically what your saying. It has no basis in fact the Poly crowd wed despite the law saying it’s illegal and even without gay rights in the picture it’s just as easily could make polygamy legal. 5 is also a joke. Just cause you give homosexuals the right to wed doesn’t mean marriage will be destroyed. In fact it might help marriage as an institution. Most people aren’t wedding these days and that trend has been going on for decades long before gays started to protest for the right to marry. As people are more and more disillusioned by man’s not god’s religion they’re are less likely to go to church and less likely to wed.

Well I guess by the logic of #2, Muslims can refuse to serve Christians. Not a slippery slope at all. Just make sure you march with the Muslims for their religious rights to violate civil rights of Christians- or else you will be a hypocrite. And how you compare consenting adults to an unconsenting animal makes me think you are very sick with a dark soul. Maybe one day you will learn that God is to make the world better, not be used to justify creating hate and denying happiness. Freedom to choose- the American and Christian way. I mean, incest is already a part of God’s plan (where did people come from after Adam and Eve’s kids? The wife of Cain was either Cain’s mom or sister. Abraham married his half-sister. King David’s heir raped his half sister. Lot was raped by his daughters. I don’t think we need to worry about the Bible being a faulty moral compass.

Marriage is a union that is based solidly in the Bible and involves one man and one woman, end of story. If the union you desire does not fit this description, you are NOT married, no matter how much you’d like to pretend that you are. So why bother? A marriage is a very specific union in the eyes of God and God has no place for gay relationships, that’s just the way it is!

Why is this even in discussing it is clearly that this is work of Satan to disgrace an distroy individuals an families as God meant for it to be. This is malicious an pose a serious threat to our society as a whole. We must do something before these liberals distroy our families, an our country.

I read this article with the intent of trying to pick apart the points given and perhaps provide a small bit of reason to anyone who might read it, but I found the depth of the ignorance so overwhelming, that I felt hopeless and just gave up. You poor, poor people…

Where is St. Valentine today? Our main social institution is under assault and about to go away. Marriage between one man and one woman was first instituted by the Romans in the 4th Century on insistence of one St Valentine. The Roman army would go through a town, hookups would occur. Since the roman generals did not want their soldiers burdened, with having to support their ‘wives’ and offspring, bastards and often widows would result. He fought hard to create this institution to protect widows and orphans making both legal Soldiers would hence be responsible for the families they created. This core is what our nation is built on and should be supported and encouraged to thrive. Gay Marriage will make nuclear marriage less important, less desirable and some will think unnecessary to our nation.What say you?

Wow. These are the articles that make me ashamed to call myself a Republican. I honestly can not believe that you people who call yourselves “good Christians” are still so eager to stoop so low as to prohibit two people who love each other shallowly based on their genders. You refuse to see it that way. How can you compare two human beings who have been put through hell because of their love for each other and their desire to be married to a person having sex with a minor or a tree or their car? Two consenting, loving people is not the same as pedophilia or having sex with an urn. That’s not even comparing apples to oranges!
Sure, a homosexual couple can’t have a child. They do one better! They are willing and able to adopt- to take a child off of the streets, out of an orphanage, away from abusive caretakers, and love them. But that doesn’t matter to you people because they’re gay and you don’t like that. I’ve been reading the comments on here for some time now and I know for a fact that the people on here don’t think that it’s better for a child to be neglected and abused by heterosexual parents. I see all kinds of death threats to mothers who left their babies in the care of a man who isn’t the father and he kills the infant. So I wonder which you guys would find worse for the child: Being with a mother who doesn’t give a crap when she hears her boyfriend beating her child because he got drunk and mad…..or being with two fathers who will love them and raise them to be more accepting of that which they don’t understand?
And this “special privilege” stuff is crap. If homosexual couples wanted special privileges, they’d be asking for extra bonuses on top of the tax benefits that marriage provides. I don’t know about anyone else, but all I’m seeing gays ask for is equality. Imagine how silly you all will look when our great- great- great- grandchildren compare your inability to see gays as human beings to……segregation against Blacks and the misogyny that women faced when we fought for voting rights. We’ve grown to see people of color as human beings. We’ve learned to see women as human beings. We will learn to see homosexuals as people. Society is growing up and learning to see human beings as human beings. This is growth for the better and if you people don’t open your minds and see this, you’re going to get left behind and all you’ll have is your hatred.
To be completely honest, this kind of hatred is one of the reasons that I don’t claim a religion. I don’t support any religion that places one branch of humanity below another based solely on things that they can’t control or decisions that they’ve made that don’t hurt anyone. This is why I don’t like Islamic religions. Women are worthless to them- nothing more than creatures for them to take their frustration out on. And this ISIS crap isn’t helping.
Quit putting this “thou shall not lie with another man” verse on a pedestal. I read an article that explains that this might just be talking about prostitution more than gay sex in itself. Try taking a look at Matthews 7 once in a while- “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” Stop trying to tell people who love each other that their love and devotion to one another will send them to hell. It just furthers the stigma against your religion and displays it as a hateful, spiteful, anti-anyonewhoisn’tastraightwhiteAmericanmale instead of the religion of peace, love, and acceptance that your Jesus Christ died for. I have no tolerance for those with no tolerance, I guess you could say. My future in-laws are Christians that preach tolerance and love and, while they don’t agree with homosexuality, they’re not going to put someone down because of their decision. I’m absolutely fine with them- no, I absolutely love my in-laws because of this! They understand that a person’s decision to be gay doesn’t hurt anyone so it’s not their business to worry about.
Oh, and FYI, the Ancient Greeks and Romans saw gay sex as a wondrous thing that everyone should experience. They saw the male as opposed to the female body as a thing of beauty. Why else were most of them naked and sweaty all the time? The youthful male body was seen as a thing of perfection and every man was to look fondly at such perfection.

#3 is the best argument.
Let each state pass civil unions as they please. If they define civil unions as man & woman or same sex, LET THE INDIVIDUAL STATES DETERMINE what their citizens want.
Leave churches alone & let them call it marriage. In essence, isn’t marriage a religious event (or sacrament)?
Is that what it’s like today? except for states don’t call them Civil Unions?
It’s not a hard one here…

I love when people throw out Leviticus quotes like he was a direct link to God. For the sake of playing on the article’s terms, I’m going to assume that Leviticus was actually a 100% credible link to all rules from the great beyond. The man is not to be argued against or have plausible, real world reason to be used against him. Got it.

You can’t eat shrimp, lobster, crabs or anything else that “have not fins and scales in the waters…they shall be an abomination unto you” Leviticus 11:10

Do we look to Timothy for rules on how to oppress women? Let’s! The bible has all the answers we should all follow!
“I do not permit a woman to teach or assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” -Timothy 2:12

Are we taking the bible as literal and not thinking for ourselves? If so, continue to oppress people who have found happiness within the same gender, but also oppress women like it’s the 1700’s (at least they could teach) and stop eating non-scaled seafood.

“Love your neighbor as yourself” -Mark 12:31
Unless they are of different beliefs or religions, then treat them like they weren’t made by God and ruin them like you’ve ruined everything beautiful you’ve ever been given.

Help people or leave them alone. Set a decent example for a world filled with hate or add to all the anger and closed minds that are already ruining the world.

There is actually a sixth reason to consider opposing gay marriage. In the countries where it is now legal, the birthrate has gone way down. There are probably a variety of reasons for this, but, certainly, the “degradation” of marriage would be one of them. You do not have people getting married and forming families. When families are not formed, it is less likely that you will have children. You have single mothers, but single mothers can only go so far, and in countries like Norway the birthrate is well below what is needed to replace the population. In other words, as people die there will not be enough to replace them and the population will go down. The only thing that is keeping the population up in these countries is the immigration of non-Norwegians/ Danes/ Swedes/ etc. These immigrants are having children and are becoming an increasing percentage of the population in these countries. In some places, such as the Netherlands, immigrants from the Middle East and Indonesia may soon outnumber the native Dutch. Given the fact that many of these immigrants are of the Islamic faith, should they become the majority in places like the Netherlands, it will be interesting to see what happens when there are more Moslems than native Dutch in the electorate in Holland and that is reflected in the national legislature. When you go to Holland, you can see people, who are obviously not of native Dutch stock, wearing t-shirts that say, “In 2040 We Take Over”.